Gesamt
← Back to Squawk list
Problem-plagued plane hits ISIS: F-22 goes into combat
Washington (CNN) -- The problem-plagued F-22 Raptor took part in its first combat mission Monday night, hitting ISIS targets in Syria. The price tag for those jets, which were in development for decades, is a staggering $412 million each -- triple its expected cost, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). (www.cnn.com) Mehr...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Who says it is a problem-plaqued plane? Only the Press. The Pilots love it.
Mr Hoffmann is correct. For pure performance, which of you would prefer to enter Syrian airspace, reportedly defended by some of Russia's best technologies, in an aluminum target. As to UAVs, they are no more capable of penetrating defended airspace and performing the missions performed by F-22s and other stealthy aircraft today than any aluminum aircraft without an extensive support capability. On cost, I'll guarantee if you keep slipping development for an extensive period, then cut the buy from over 600 to 180, the cost per unit will go up enormously, though the actual production cost won’t change much. Bottom line is all arguments but the first miss the point. One can quibble about the scenarios the services are directed by our elected and appointed officials to plan for, but among those scenarios are serious threats that only aircraft like the F-22, F-35 and B-2 can penetrate, operate effectively, and have good odds of return. Given this, I have a question for FlightAware. In addition to highlighting this ridiculous CNN piece, written by people who clearly never intend to fly a mission in defended airspace (high or otherwise) or consider what that might require, how about offering a useful, or even a balanced counterpoint. There is a short, but reasonable effort in AvWeb (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/2911-full.html?ET=avweb:e2911:229830a:&st=email#222809). Even there, I’d quibble a bit. There were no high level defenses in Iraq or Afghanistan that justified stealthy fighter capability, and their use would have fed denigrators raw meat to claim their use was political or for publicity (probably correctly so). Would like to see an article published taking CNN to task, and using readily available evidence. You might even offer CNN a chance to reply, but next time they would have to actually prepare.
Yes, Army Air Corp. Forgot. Putting some shields over the exhaust stacks could minimize SAM targeted heat signatures I rekon. Come in fast and low, equipped with high-tech weapons (plus the 50 cals) and yes, they would do a fine job tearing up the ground targets. Let the German pilots use them too. That would be a touch of joyful irony. We could also give the Marines some Corsairs.
Let's bring back the P-51 and P-47 to do the job. Now THOSE were good airplanes for the USAF!
USAAF! I like your thinking. Against the Toyota pickups they would do pretty good. The SAMs would give a little more trouble though.
I'm surprised to hear so many people rant against the F-22. I understand the F-35 issue(s), but the F-22, albeit it overdue and over-budget, is a stunning piece of technology that will serve us well for years to come. As for the cost per unit, or even cost for the entire program, it seems that it is hard to measure because, as another user mentioned, it was cancelled with a low production run and much of the technology is brand new and is being used in the F-35 and other applications. Defray the cost over all of the projects the development of this aircraft will support and I am sure one will find it to be much more reasonable. I'm not sure how this program compares to others in terms of setbacks and issues (remembering that again much of this technology is more complicated than ever), but I am more willing to forgive on this program that the F-35. One final interesting fact - if this is such a useless aircraft, why is it against the law to export it? Seems like Lockheed is getting the stick in the eye.